"Let no freedom be allowed to novelty, because it is not fitting that any addition should be made to antiquity. Let not the clear faith and belief of our forefathers be fouled by any muddy admixture."
-- Pope Sixtus III

Thursday, June 07, 2012

Was our first sodomite clown presiphant* trying to amuse his sodomite audience or was he coyly implying he and Myhell are really, really, really "down" with their particular agenda of perversion? ["He" does seem to pander to all sorts of perverts, doesn't he?]

All the chatter about this kerfuffle is curiously hetero-centric. Couldn't he have been quipping about our first "gay" [She never seems to be happy when I see her though.] First Lady enjoying a little non-Euclidean action on the side? Maybe she's tired of the "zebra" [Thanks to Chris Rock for that elegant neologism.] and wanted to try America's third-whitest dyke, Ellen DeGenerate.

If all he did was joke about his wife's aversion to fellatio, he's just an asshole.

A comment by the commander-in-chief about his wife's exercise routine
sent snickers through a crowd of Hollywood's gay and lesbian elite who
gathered at an LGBT Leadership Council gala in Beverly Hills on
Wednesday for a fund-raiser.

After being introduced by emcee Ellen DeGeneres, Obama called the
comedian "a great friend who accepts a little bit of teasing about
Michelle beating her in pushups" when the First Lady appeared on her
show, the Los Angeles Times reported.

"I think she claims Michelle didn't go all the way down," Obama quipped.

Did President Barack Obama make a rude
joke about his wife Michelle and oral sex at a Beverly Hills fundraiser
for the Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Leadership Council?Talking
to some 600 supporters at the event on Wednesday night, Obama referred
to Ellen DeGeneres, the stand-up comedian and television host and a
lesbian.

'I want to thank
my wonderful friend who accepts a little bit of teasing about Michelle
beating her in push-ups but I think she claims Michelle didn't go all
the way down,' he said. The crowd erupted into what the Los Angeles
Times described as 'bawdy laughter'.In the pool report of the event, Todd
Gillman of the Dallas Morning News, wrote that this was a line that
Obama 'let hang, naughtily, provoking laughter from the crowd'.

It
remained unclear, however, whether Obama uttered a deliberate double
entendre about his wife having oral sex with a lesbian or whether he
simply stumbled into using a phrase that was misinterpreted.

The LA Times plumped for the latter
interpretation, reporting that 'the president seemed briefly caught
off-stride when the audience interpreted as off-colour a joke he made
about a push-up competition between DeGeneres and his wife, initiated by
the talk show host in February'.

After
the bawdy laughter, the newspaper continued: 'Obama kept a straight
face. "That's what I heard," he added. "I just want to set the record
straight. Michelle outdoes me in push-ups as well. You shouldn't feel
bad."'

Obama was very much amongst friends at
the Beverly Wilshire Hotel event, part of a two-day fundraising swing
through California and Nevada during which he is expected to raise more
than $15 million for his re-election bid...

* An Asian presiphant of course. An African presiphant would be racist.

On
the evening of January 11, 1996, while Mitt Romney was in the final
years of his run as the head of Bain Capital, Barack Obama formally
joined the New Party, which was deeply hostile to the mainstream of the
Democratic party and even to American capitalism. In 2008, candidate
Obama deceived the American public about his potentially damaging tie to
this third party. The issue remains as fresh as today’s headlines, as
Romney argues that Obama is trying to move the United States toward
European-style social democracy, which was precisely the New Party’s
goal.

In late October 2008, when I wrote here at National Review Online that Obama had been a member of the New Party, his campaign sharply denied it, calling my claim a “crackpot smear.”
Fight the Smears, an official Obama-campaign website, staunchly
maintained that “Barack has been a member of only one political party,
the Democratic Party.” I rebutted this, but the debate was never taken up by the mainstream press.

Recently obtained evidence from the updated records of Illinois ACORN
at the Wisconsin Historical Society now definitively establishes that
Obama was a member of the New Party. He also signed a “contract”
promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party
while in office.

Minutes of the meeting on January 11, 1996, of the New Party’s Chicago chapter read as follows:

Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative
District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He
signed the New Party “Candidate Contract” and requested an endorsement
from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.

Consistent with this, a roster of the Chicago chapter of the New
Party from early 1997 lists Obama as a member, with January 11, 1996,
indicated as the date he joined.

Knowing that Obama disguised his New Party membership helps make
sense of his questionable handling of the 2008 controversy over his ties
to ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now).
During his third debate with John McCain, Obama said that the “only”
involvement he’d had with ACORN was to represent the group in a lawsuit
seeking to compel Illinois to implement the National Voter Registration
Act, or motor-voter law. The records of Illinois ACORN and its
associated union clearly contradict that assertion, as I show in my
political biography of the president, Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism.

Why did Obama deny his ties to ACORN? The group was notorious in 2008
for thug tactics, fraudulent voter registrations, and its role in
popularizing risky subprime lending. Admitting that he had helped to
fund ACORN’s voter-registration efforts and train some of their
organizers would doubtless have been an embarrassment but not likely a
crippling blow to his campaign. So why not simply confess the tie and
make light of it? The problem for Obama was ACORN’s political arm, the
New Party.

The revelation in 2008 that Obama had joined an ACORN-controlled,
leftist third party could have been damaging indeed, and coming clean
about his broader work with ACORN might easily have exposed these New
Party ties.
Because the work of ACORN and the New Party often
intersected with Obama’s other alliances, honesty about his ties to
either could have laid bare the entire network of his leftist political
partnerships.

Although Obama is ultimately responsible for deceiving the American
people in 2008 about his political background, he got help from his old
associates. Each of the two former political allies who helped him to
deny his New Party membership during campaign ’08 was in a position to
know better.

The Fight the Smears website quoted Carol Harwell, who managed
Obama’s 1996 campaign for the Illinois senate: “Barack did not solicit
or seek the New Party endorsement for state senator in 1995.” Drawing on
her testimony, Fight the Smears conceded that the New Party did support
Obama in 1996 but denied that Obama had ever joined, adding that “he
was the only candidate on the ballot in his race and never solicited the
endorsement.”

We’ve seen that this is false. Obama formally requested New Party
endorsement, signed the candidate contract, and joined the party. Is it
conceivable that Obama’s own campaign manager could have been unaware of
this? The notion is implausible. And the documents make Harwell’s
assertion more remarkable still.

Wednesday, June 06, 2012

by Roger Ebert

La Ebert seems to be hung up on the notion of all those millions of 1920's Mexican Buddhists the film makers ignored because of bigotry...

In the years 1926 through 1929, Mexico fought a war over the
freedom of Roman Catholics to worship. As a result of the Mexican
Revolution, the constitution of 1917 stripped great power from the
church, along with half of its enormous land holdings. But it was not
until the regime of President Plutarco Elias Calles, who began to
strictly enforce the constitution, that an uprising ensued. Supporters
of the Catholic Church, who called themselves Cristeros, began a
campaign against federal troops and had surprising success after they
hired Gen. Enrique Gorostieta Velarde to lead their forces.

An atheist and a hero of the revolution, Gorostieta signed on for
the cash and because he supported the principle of religious freedom.
In the context of a new English-language epic called "For Greater
Glory," that principle apparently applies only to Catholics. No other
religion is ever mentioned. [The truth is only the Catholic Church can and will stand up to the power-mad. The bad guys don't go after "protestants" or Shintoists for a reason. - F.G.] The war took heavy casualties on both sides,
and the United States played a behind-the-scenes role in protecting the
interests of U.S. oil companies whose concessions controlled much of
Mexico's oil.

This war has all the elements to make it
well-known, but I confess I'd never heard of it. A close
Mexican-American friend, well-informed in Mexican history, told me she
never has, either. Is it in the usual history books? You'll learn a lot
about it in "For Greater Glory," the most expensive film ever made in
Mexico, an ambitious production with a cast filled with stars.

It
is well-made, yes, but has such pro-Catholic tunnel vision I began to
question its view of events. One important subplot involves a
12-year-old boy choosing to die for his faith. Of course the federal
troops who shot him were monsters, but the film seems to approve of his
decision and includes him approvingly in a long list of Cristeros who
have achieved sainthood or beatification after their deaths in the war.

The central figure is Gorostieta, played by Andy Garcia
with impressive strength and presence. He values his own leadership
expertise, defends the fact that he is serving because of the money, and
indeed is a brilliant general. There's an effective sequence where he
warns a jealous Cristeros leader he is probably leading his men into an
ambush. The man won't listen. Gorostieta lets him go, and then leads his
own troops up behind the ambushing federales, who are exactly where he
predicted they would be.

President Calles (Ruben Blades),
who can't believe the Cristeros can possibly be successful, pursues the
war beyond what seems to be all common sense. It's one thing to enforce
legal restraints on the Catholic Church and another — a riskier one —
to order such extremes as sending all the bishops and foreign-born
clergy out of the country and authorizing the murder of priests in their
own churches. In an early sequence, Peter O'Toole
plays a 77-year-old priest killed by the federales, and it is Jose, the
altar boy who sees him die, who later becomes the martyr.

So
dedicated are Jose and a young friend to the Cristeros cause that they
ride out on horseback and find the secret camp of Gen. Gorostieta. He
rejects them as soldiers and puts them to work caring for horses. But
his love for the boy grows so much that he regards him as a son, and
indeed the boy only dies because he is on a mission for Gorostieta. The
general surely deserves some of the blame for putting a child in a
hazardous position.

"For Greater Glory" is the kind of long,
expensive epic not much made any more. It bears the hallmarks of being a
labor of love. I suspect it's too long for some audiences. It is also
very heavy on battle scenes, in which the Cristeros seem to have
uncannily good aim. But in its use of locations and sets, it's an
impressive achievement by director Dean Wright, whose credits include
some of the effects on the "Lord of the Rings" films. If it had not
hewed so singlemindedly to the Catholic view and included all religions
under the banner of religious liberty, I believe it would have been more
effective. If your religion doesn't respect the rights of other
religions, it is lacking something.

Yankees catcher Russell Martin says home plate umpire Laz Diaz decided
on an unusual way to punish him for arguing balls and strikes.

Martin says Diaz wouldn’t allow him to throw new baseballs back
to his pitchers after fouls during New York’s 6-5 win over the Los
Angeles Angels on Wednesday night.Martin and Diaz got into it early in the game, and Martin says Diaz
“was punishing me” by making all of the throws himself. Martin prefers
to make the throws to keep his arm loose for base-stealers.

Martin says Diaz told him that throwing the balls was “a privilege I had to earn.”

Martin
was mystified by Diaz’s treatment. He is a three-time All-Star
selection and a Gold Glove winner with the Los Angeles Dodgers in 2007.

Diaz was unavailable for comment because Martin spoke nearly an hour after the game.

When Texas geologist Earle McBride visited Omaha Beach
in Normandy, France, in 1988, four decades after D-Day, the visible
remnants of the Allied Forces' invasion there had long ago vanished.

But he and a colleague would later discover the history of the June
6, 1944, invasion of Normandy's beaches - which marked a turning point
in World War Two - lingered in the sand in the form of tiny pieces of
shrapnel only visible under a microscope.

It wasn't a discovery that McBride and colleague Dane Picard of Utah
set out to make during their tourist visit to Omaha Beach, where U.S.
forces suffered their greatest casualties in the assault against heavily
fortified German defenses. "We didn't think about, ‘Hey, there should be shrapnel here?'" said
McBride, 80, a professor emeritus at the University of Texas who retired
in 2005 but still goes to his office five hours a day to study rocks.

But the geologists did what long ago became their habit when they
visit a beach anywhere in the world: they put a bit of sand in a plastic
bag and took it home. McBride didn't fully analyze the sample for more than two decades.
Finally, in retirement, he made a slide of the sand by using blue-dyed
epoxy to bind the grains together.

On a recent day in his tiny
office at the Austin university where he taught for 46 years, McBride
showed a visitor what he found. Under a microscope, rounded grains -
quartz, feldspar, clam and oyster shells - were visible, along with
jagged-edged grains.

"You see how angular that grain is?" he asked. "It's an anomaly - if
it had the same origin and history, it should have been well-rounded,
too."

A different light source on the microscope revealed that the
jagged-edged grains had a metallic sheen and a rust-colored coating, and
when McBride held a magnet to some of the sand, the angular grains
proved to be magnetic.

McBride suspected the jagged grains were shrapnel, and he used a
scanning electron microscope to verify his hunch. It showed the grains
were iron with a bit of oxygen from rust.

He also found the sand included small spherical iron and glass
beads, which he and Picard believe were formed by munitions explosions
in the air and sand. "It's a detective story," McBride said. "Sand has an exciting history."

He said it's not surprising that shrapnel was left on the beach.
Rather the surprise is that it remained there decades later, long after
the wrecked ships, tanks and aircraft were gone.

But the shrapnel won't be in the sand forever, he and Picard wrote in Earth Magazine last year.

"The combination of chemical corrosion and abrasion will likely
destroy the grains in a century or so, leaving only the memorials and
people's memories to recall the extent of devastation suffered by those
directly engaged in World War II," they wrote.

The research by McBride and Picard - a professor emeritus at the
University of Utah - was published in the September 2011 edition of The
Sedimentary Record, a scholarly journal.

"It was a great approach," said Xavier Janson, a research scientist
at the University of Texas and an editor of the Record. "It was using a
geological tool that you usually use to understand where sand grains
come from, but instead, it was used to understand what happened on this
beach."

For McBride, the discovery is an example of why he still finds
passion in his lifelong work studying sedimentary rocks, the ones most
commonly found on the earth's surface.

The latest project on his desk is a 450-million-year-old rock from
Utah roughly the size of a softball; he's trying to reconstruct the
history of how it formed and where its grains originated.

The earth is old, McBride said,
and "all I can do is work on one little chunk of the history of
sandstones. As we say, so many rocks, so little time."

In
a victory seen by Republicans as a mandate of a political agenda that
included sharp cuts to public sector union rights, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker on Tuesday became the first governor in US history to win a recall election.

My personal favorite is this bucket of bilgewater from some totalitarian of the middle called Walter Shapiro at Yahoo! News, who also flings his poop for the New Republic:

The Wisconsin governor survived the recall, but he could have avoided it altogether by trusting voters with the truth.

In this throw-a-chair era of political combat, it was inevitable that
the recall election results from Wisconsin would be misinterpreted.
Flush with vindication over having survived the over-hyped recall
challenge, Republican Gov. Scott Walker declared, “Tonight, we tell
Wisconsin, we tell our country, and we tell people around the globe that
voters really do want leaders who stand up and make tough decisions.”

Walker,
who won his rematch with Tom Barrett, the Democratic mayor of
Milwaukee, by a larger margin than in 2010, is entitled to assume that
yak herders in Mongolia—like everyone around the globe—cheered the
results from Waukesha. The governor is even free to believe that facing
down the public-sector unions in Wisconsin is courageous leadership on
par with Abraham Lincoln preserving the Union. But what is flat-out
wrong was Walker’s claim that voters crave leaders who make “tough
decisions” the way that he did.

During
Walker’s initial race for governor two years ago, Wisconsin voters knew
that he was a fiscal and social conservative enraged by government
spending plans like building a high-speed rail connection between
Milwaukee and Madison. So no one should have been surprised when,
shortly after taking office last year, Walker ripped up the tracks on
the high-speed rail plan, spurning $810 million in federal funds. That
is what political leadership should be—presenting your vision to the
voters and, if elected, trying to enact it.

In
contrast, Walker kept under wraps during his first gubernatorial race
his driving dream of drastically curtailing the collective bargaining
rights of public employees. This stealth campaigning was probably smart
politics. Wisconsin, after all, is the state that pioneered
public-sector unionism. But by not running on this issue, Walker
deliberately deprived himself of an electoral mandate.

That
hush-hush strategy partly explains the seismic shock that hit Wisconsin
when Walker, a month after taking office, revealed the full extent of
his anti-union agenda. At a dinner for his Cabinet in February 2011, the
night before he unveiled his legislation (Act 10) to roll back union
bargaining rights, Walker compared himself to Ronald Reagan standing up
to the air-traffic controllers in 1981. The freshly minted governor
said, “This is our time to change the course of history.”

What
Walker missed with his bend-history rhetoric was that Reagan broke the
air traffic controllers union in response to an illegal strike. This is
what presidents and leaders do—react to unexpected crises in a way that
reflects their already articulated governing philosophy.

But in
Wisconsin, there was no public employee strike, just the budgetary
shortfall that afflicted most states in this stagnant economy. Without a
crisis, Walker went beyond his electoral mandate in an effort to neuter
the unions. Act 10 was an act of preventive war, a surprise invasion
into a political area that many voters had assumed was off limits.

Walker’s
unquestioned triumph Tuesday in beating back the unions and the
Democrats may vault him onto Mitt Romney’s vice-presidential list. But
in truth, there is little honor for Walker in being only the third
governor face a recall election—and the first to survive one—since the
Progressives came up with this drastic remedy for bad governance more
than a century ago. For all Walker’s glib talk about leadership, a
politician is doing things wrong when he becomes so polarizing a figure
that he has to spend nearly $50 million to avoid being booted out of
office after just 19 months.

Walker’s hubristic overreach brings
to mind Rahm Emanuel’s assertion, during the 2008 transition period
after President Barack Obama’s election, “No crisis should go to waste.”
Just after being named Obama’s White House chief of staff, Emanuel told
a conference, “This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things
that you could not do before.” As a result, Obama’s much-needed 2009
short-term stimulus plan (remember: the economy barely had a heartbeat)
was larded with long-term projects like high-speed rail and revamping
the nation’s electrical grid.

Upon taking office, of course,
Obama had to go beyond the limited economic jump-start plan that he
articulated during his campaign. The world changed on September 15,
2008, with the collapse of Lehman Brothers. During the remaining six
weeks of the presidential race, neither Obama nor John McCain grasped
that this Wall Street financial crisis would produce the worst sustained
economic downturn since the Depression. This is why endlessly parsing
campaign position papers is folly. Every presidency is shaped by
unforeseen events and unimagined crises.

As we wait for the
Supreme Court to rule later this month on the constitutionality of
health care reform, Obama’s signature legislative achievement, it is
worth pondering whether a more incremental approach by the president
would have made more political sense. Throughout the 2008 campaign,
Obama, to his credit, made clear to the voters that revamping the health
care system would be a major priority.

But in his public rhetoric, Obama never said a federal mandate would be
at the center of his health-care plan. During the Democratic
presidential primaries, Obama even attacked Hillary Clinton for
championing a legal requirement that every American have health
insurance. (Needless to say, Obama’s turnabout is more than matched by
Romney’s amnesiac approach to the health care mandate that he enacted as
Massachusetts governor.)

My point is not to create a false
equivalence between Obama and Walker, who spurned traditional norms of
governing as soon as he took office in Wisconsin. But it is telling that
two of the most unpopular aspects of the Obama presidency (the
overreach of the stimulus package and the health care mandate) went far
beyond his 2008 campaign oratory.

The secret to political
leadership—whether as a governor or in the Oval Office—is to trust the
voters with the truth. That way an electoral mandate can mean something
beyond an opportunity to assert power for the sake of asserting power.
If Wisconsin can provide a lasting lesson in the dangers of political
overreach, then maybe the partisan excess of the third recall election
in American history was not entirely wasted.

Once upon a time, kiddies, Unoriginal G. was a knownothing PoliSci prof at a D- II public university in Amishland. He used the serf kids in his classes to do polls and convinced one of the local yokel TV stations to put him and his polls on the air. Of course, he was labeled an "expert" so the peons would think ol' G. was chock full of gravitas.

After a couple of years of this nonsense, the Wizz was hired by Franklin & Marshall College, an elitist D-III institution in Lancaster, PA. [Rich kids without the grades to get into Ivy League schools go there.] Along with a bump in pay, G. got himself a whole bunch of establishment street cred and now you'd think he was the only person in the Commonwealth who knows anything about politics.

At least that is what the chattering classes want you to think.

As Rick Santorum reminded us a couple of months ago, G. is nothing but a failed local Democrass pol. [He couldn't even win the one Lancaster County Commissioner seat guaranteed to go to the top Democrass vote-getter.]

So the next time you see a F&M poll announcing the primacy of crony communism in our Commonwealth, remember that little Terry just made it all up so he could pretend to be a big shot.

About Me

First of all, the word is SEX, not GENDER. If you are ever tempted to use the word GENDER, don't. The word is SEX! SEX! SEX! SEX! For example: "My sex is male." is correct.
"My gender is male." means nothing. Look it up.
What kind of sick neo-Puritan nonsense is this? Idiot left-fascists, get your blood-soaked paws off the English language. Hence I am choosing "male" under protest.